Re: Removing SunOS/68k compatibility before 8.0

Frank Wille <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.os.netbsd.ports.amiga
Organization Privates Internet Ostwestfalen/Lippe e.V.
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Swift Griggs wrote:

> Since the VAS is independent of the PAS, shouldn't simply increasing
> the size of the page table that tracks the virtual memory increase it's
> upper limit? I'm guessing for some reason it's not that easy.

I'm not sure. I haven't done anything with 68k MMUs in the last two decades.

It wouldn't surprise me when there is some pmap init code which only creates
the page tables for a limited address space, like 0x00000000 to 0x1fffffff.

Otherwise all I know are the parameters in amiga/include/vmparam.h. I would
probably move USRSTACK (currently at 0x1e000000), which defines the
VM_MAX_ADDRESS, and then adapt the MAXDSIZ for a process accordingly.


> I can't think of any reason why the 68k would limit you doing that at a
> ISA or architectural level.

The 68k is not problem. It can handle 4GB VM just fine. The problem for me
is to find all required modifications in the source.


> The
> issue you mention about SunOS not being able use the MSB of a pointer,

Forget that. At the first glance I noticed that the address space of a user
process was limited to 32MB code and 224MB data, so I was guessing that no
more than 256MB of virtual address space would ever be used.

Which is wrong. The user stack ends at 0x1e000000.

I didn't see any problem in the source with SunOS myself, to be honest. I
just remember that Michael van Elst mentioned long ago on this list that
SunOS compatibility is the reason for the limited virtual address space.


> I do have a few 68k Macs, though.

Currently the maximum data segment size for a mac68k user processes is
limited to only 64MB. Maybe we can increase that too, if you like to test.


> it's just that I've been working on learning 68k ASM all
> year and studying the 68k in my spare time, so I'm curious and excited
> about this topic.

Most is C in NetBSD, but it is often required to know details about the CPU
architecture.

Good choice to play with 68k, BTW! I know no better CPU for having fun with
assembler programming. :)

-- 
Frank Wille
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.